[Libosinfo] Fwd: [PATCH 4/4] gnome: Add info about 3.10

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:17:43PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Christophe Fergeau
>> <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:43:58PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Christophe Fergeau
>> >> <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > You are missing my point, I'm saying that ostree based images are
>> >> > very
>> >> > different from the GNOME live CDs that are already listed in
>> >> > libosinfo
>> >> > database,
>> >>
>> >> And that is simply not true. They are both GNOME. The fact that <=3.8
>> >> media were based on fedora was an implementation detail that is pretty
>> >> irrelevant. They are both still the same OS.
>> >
>> > From a user point of view, this could be the way the GNOME project
>> > wants to
>> > market these images. From a libosinfo internal representation point of
>> > view, I think this 'implementation detail' is significant enough for us
>> > to
>> > represent them differently. Different base OS can also mean differences
>> > in
>> > hardware supported by the image.
>> >
>> > The live cd and these ostree images are very different things, let's
>> > represent them _internally_ as different OSes (note that I haven't said
>> > anything about the user-visible OS names).
>>-
>> If you read my previous mail more thoroughly, I already explained how
>> we can deal with this difference when such a difference realizes (i-e
>> *if* there is a fedora-based gnome iso again for some reason)
>> *without* breaking anything what so ever.
>
> What do we do when the GNOME project starts releasing GNOME OS
> installer ISOs if they happen not to be based on ostree for some reason?

That is an even more unlikely scenerio. Talk to the people involved a
bit and you'll realize this:

<zeenix> [16:48:51] is there any intentions still to do installer for gnome?
<zeenix> [16:49:52] hughsie: poettering: owen: ^
<zeenix> [16:50:19] the installer question, not ramcq's kudos :)
<hughsie> [16:50:44] zeenix, not by me, mclasen would kill me
<mclasen> [16:51:23] zeenix: what would the installer do ?
<zeenix> [17:00:51] mclasen: install gnome? :)
<zeenix> [17:01:09] i guess the answer is 'no' then
<ebassi> [17:12:12] zeenix: I guess the actual question would be: what
does "install gnome" mean?
<mclasen> [17:15:20] wget
http://build.gnome.org/ostree/buildmaster/images/z/current/gnome-ostree-x86_64-runtime.qcow2.gz
?
<zeenix> [17:20:39] ebassi: i don't know. I'm just curious

> Wouldn't we want to use the http://gnome.org/3.10 id for that rather than
> having something else use that?

As I've been trying to explain, this is unlikely to happen in the
first place. *If* it happens, a bit of weird IDs are nothing to be
concerned or worried about.

>> So your whole point is now
>> mute as I already made changes to my patches that do take this
>> difference in account as much as it needs to be right now.
>
> My initial point still stands, it's just weird to have http://gnome.org/3.6
> be a fedora-based live cd,

A very unlikely weirdness in future is fine by me and I'd choose that
over breaking the ID scheme already for it.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124